← JUDAOreviewed 2026-10-27 · 16 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read JUDAO against the sources the page cites. Only the most recent review is shown.
Read this first
These findings are produced by an automated reviewer, and its results vary between runs: the same page, checked three times on the same day, came back with 15%, 20% and 34% of its claims disputed, mostly because each run extracted a different number of claims. Treat what follows as leads, not rulings.
“Disputed” means the reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. It does not mean the claim is false. “Unverifiable” means no reachable source settled it either way.
Nothing here changes the page on its own. A proposed correction is applied only after a human moderator approves it; until then the page reads as it did when reviewed.
unverifiable
7 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #8[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Smart Contract Vulnerability and Absence of Audit
“the BSCScan page for the contract shows 'No Contract Security Audit Submitted.'”
reviewerBSCScan shows no audit submittedCould not read BscScan. No audit found in searches, but that is not confirmation. - #9[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: JuCoin Background and Regulatory Concerns
“The post-exploit token price according to DEXTools was approximately $0.176, while the all-time high was $0.00170 (January 16, 2026 per Coinranking)”
reviewerPrice discrepancy: post-exploit $0.176 vs ATH $0.00170Snapshot prices are unstable and conflict across trackers. The page's own inference of 'price manipulation' is speculative. - #11[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: April 2026 Flash Loan Exploit
“Security monitoring firm ExVulSec issued the first public exploit alert on X”
reviewerExVulSec issued the first public alertCould not read X. 'First' is a strong claim, and no archive exists. - #12[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Project Overview and Token Versions
“deployed approximately January 15–16, 2026 according to Coinranking data”
reviewerT3 JUDAO deployed Jan 15-16, 2026, supply 330M, ATH $0.00170 on Jan 16Not verified. Note the Verichains post identifies a different contract (0x5D7b... pair) as vulnerable; the page does distinguish these. - #14[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: JuCoin Background and Regulatory Concerns
“The South Korean Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) is alleged to have investigated JuCoin's historical ties to the collapsed JPEX project.”
reviewerJuCoin's ties to JPEX and South Korean FIU investigationNot in the Mitrade source; AiInvest not fetched and is a low-quality aggregator. The JPEX link is also asserted in sections[3] without a supporting source. - #15[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“JuCoin's native JU token collapses approximately 75% within hours, falling from ~$24 to ~$6.”
reviewerJU token collapsed ~75% in hours in September 2025 from ~$24 to ~$6Not independently verified. Recommend corroboration from a primary market data source. - #16[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Project Overview and Token Versions
“A third variant, 'JUDAO 3.0,' was announced by JuCoin's official account on X as a 'decentralized autonomous protocol built on Polygon and AI tech,'”
reviewerJUDAO 3.0 announced by JuCoin on X as built on Polygon with NordCore LabsCould not read the post. Verichains and the search snippet from CoinStats do mention JUDAO exploit but not the JUDAO 3.0 announcement.
link rot
2 claimsA cited source no longer resolves or no longer says what the page attributes to it.
- #5[link rot][awaiting moderator]in section: April 2026 Flash Loan Exploit
“MEXC News independently reported the TVL of the JUDAO pool at the time of the attack at $22.3 million, suggesting significant investor capital was at risk.”
reviewerMEXC News reported TVL of $22.3 millionMEXC URL returns 410. The same figure is available in the Live Bitcoin News article, which appears to be the same syndicated piece, so 'independently' is also doubtful.Proposed correction (not yet applied)Live Bitcoin News reported the TVL of the JUDAO pool at the time of the attack at $22.3 million, suggesting significant investor capital was at risk. - #6[link rot][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“https://www.mexc.com/news/1060124”
reviewerMEXC timeline source URL is deadDead link; the Live Bitcoin News article carries the same content. The 2026-04-28 date of the report itself is also unconfirmed.Proposed correction (not yet applied)https://www.livebitcoinnews.com/wrong-fee-tier-set-in-january-413k-gone-by-april/
partially supported
3 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #3[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: April 2026 Flash Loan Exploit
“flash-loaned 2,295,723 USDT from Lista DAO's Moolah protocol to purchase approximately 5.5 million JUDAO tokens against the PancakeSwap V2 BUSD-JUDAO pool”
reviewerFlash loan of 2,295,723 USDT came from Lista DAO's Moolah and was used against a PancakeSwap V2 BUSD-JUDAO poolAmount and purchase size are supported. The Lista DAO attribution and 'BUSD-JUDAO' pool name were not found in the fetched sources. - #4[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: April 2026 Flash Loan Exploit
“resulting in losses of approximately $205,259 USDT plus 36 BNB (total approximately $227,600–$228,000 at time of incident)”
reviewerLosses of $205,259 USDT plus 36 BNB (~$227,600)Components match; a differing $464K estimate in the cited article is not mentioned on the page. - #10[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“Attacker (0x5384B34C74024d6563B323351a4bBFA18432161B) flash-loans 2,295,723 USDT from Lista DAO: Moolah”
reviewerLista DAO attribution in the timelineAmount approximately right; exact 2,295,723 figure and the provider are not in the fetched sources.
confirmed
4 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in the summary
“On April 28, 2026, the token's liquidity pool was drained of approximately $228,000 through a flash loan exploit that exploited a double-reserve-sync vulnerability in its custom transfer logic.”
reviewerOn April 28, 2026 the JUDAO pool was drained of about $228,000 via flash loan exploiting a double-reserve-sync flawVerichains matches date, loss, and root cause. - #2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: April 2026 Flash Loan Exploit
“The exploit transaction hash is 0x956e38b8ddb40ba080c8042c685ae52ee5c1b096f1d7f0c4a6c59be3eb4265bd.”
reviewerAttacker address, attacker contract, and tx hashAll addresses and hash match the Verichains write-up. - #7[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Smart Contract Vulnerability and Absence of Audit
“an 'isBurnPair' check that burns or redistributes JUDAO from the liquidity pair's reserves when price has not risen more than 5% from the prior day”
reviewerContract's custom mechanics: isBurnPair when price has not risen more than 5%, double syncConsistent with Verichains. The ~2% dead-address drain detail was not independently confirmed. - #13[confirmed][no action needed]in section: ZachXBT Flag: JuCoin Ecosystem Connection
“ZachXBT stated that JuCoin, Bitunix, and WEEX all failed his verification test of whether the team is public and has a prior work history in the space.”
reviewerZachXBT called JuCoin 'sketchy' in March 2025; JuCoin, Bitunix, WEEX failed his team-public testSupported. The Mitrade article implies the flag was around March 27, 2025; the timeline date 2025-03-28 is the publication date, a minor difference.
How this fits together. The reviewer reads the published page and its cited sources and records one finding per claim. A human moderator decides whether each proposed correction is applied; those decisions, and the score changes they cause, appear in the audit log. Earlier review runs are not shown here; only the latest reflects the page as it stands.